US Will Veto Bashir Deferral Resolution

by Kevin Jon Heller

Who would have thought that the US would emerge as the most committed supporter of the ICC in Darfur? From the “Hague Invasion Act” to protecting the Court from the spinelessness of its erstwhile supporters, the UK and France:

“If asked—if forced to vote today—the United States, even if it was 191 countries against one, would veto an Article 16 [resolution],” Ambassador Richard Williamson, the U.S. special envoy to Sudan said at a hearing of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom.

This is the first time a US official makes a formal position on issue of the suspension despite the heavy debate within the UN and regional organizations.

But the diplomat stopped short of saying that the U.S. will never support the suspension of the ICC’s Darfur cases, instead laying out a list of conditions that should be met before such a move would be tolerable, including “progress on the ground to provide alleviation of humanitarian suffering” and “sustainable security on the ground in Darfur and South Sudan.”

“We have not seen a response by the officials in Sudan to approach the sort of meaningful steps in those areas that are noteworthy,” said Williamson.

This is the correct position. The Security Council can defer the prosecution at any time, so why not force Bashir to show genuine willingness to negotiate in good faith before giving him a year of breathing room?

Here’s a sentence I don’t get to write very often — but one I’m delighted to write on this occasion: Kudos to the US!

2 Responses

Response…USA IS RIGHT THIS TIME IN UPHOLDING THE ICC PROSECUTION OF BASHIR- THE HEINOUS CRIMINAL.NEXT TIME, THE USA SHOULD NOT OPPOSE PROSECUTION OF BUSH FOR HIS CRIMES IN IRAQ.ICC KNOWS NO CHAIR NOR POSITION.KUDOS.USA, CAN YOU REPEAT THIS OR IS IT ONE TIME LOVE FOR JUSTICE ? After November election, the USA should be a party to the ICC.USA need not remain a pariah in interntional rule of law.It should repeal Hague Invasion Act immediately.professor N.Sanajaoba, assam,India

professor N.Sanajaoba, India

9.29.2008
at 11:06 pm EST Professor Naorem Sanajaoba

Congratulations to the US, yes..
But on the flipside, it’s a sad day for the ICC when it’s only supporter at the Security Council doesn’t even believe in it and is merely making use of it for its own ends.

December 13, 2017The Puzzling US Submission to the Assembly of States Parties
The US submission to the ASP has finally appeared. It is not very long -- about 1.5 pages -- but manages to pack in a good number of false claims and bizarre interpretations of the Rome Statute.
In terms of falsity, the US repeats its longstandin...

December 11, 2017Against (False) Consensus -- the ASP and the Aggression Amendments
Although many important issues will be discussed this week at the Assembly of States Parties (ASP), none will be quite so momentous as the decision to activate the ICC's jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. Whatever one thinks of the merits of ...

December 5, 2017Cyber Operations and GCII Article 18’s “End of Engagements” Clause[Jeffrey Biller, Lt Col, USAF, is the Associate Director for the Law of Air, Space and Cyber Operations at the Stockton Center for the Study of International Law, US Naval War College.]
On 27 May 1941, the British battleships King George V and Rod...